User:Ameliabiblio/sandbox

Evaluating Content
Everything in the article is relevant to the topic, but the article could be expanded significantly. No information is out of date necessarily, but the most recent information, it seems, is from around 2014, so I'm sure the article could be updated. New sections could be added, such as themes, style, or the history of the novel. I think the history of the novel would be an interesting section to add because it has such an interesting history, as it was discovered and published this century even though it was written in the 19th century. Another interesting section to add would be one detailing its relations to and disparities from the slave narrative, as many scholars tend to put it in a genre entirely its own. It has many similarities to the slave narrative, but it also diverges from that general in many ways and detailing those ways would add significantly to the article. An already existing section that could be added to is the "Characters" section. The basic major characters are already there, but adding a couple characters such as Mrs. Henry, Charlotte, Jacob, and Mrs. Wright, especially since Mrs. Henry and Mrs. Wright are mentioned in the "Summary" section, but not in the "Characters" section.

Evaluating Tone
The tone of the article feels neutral. There do not appear to be any claims heavily biased towards a certain position. One viewpoint that is not in the article that perhaps should be is if any scholars have argued that The Bondwoman's Narrative is not a historical document. There was sufficient information detailing why it is considered a historical document, but if there is a dissenting voice I think that would be important to include. If there is not, maybe including a sentence mentioning that there are no scholars with dissenting views so it's clear that everyone agrees that it is a historical document would enhance the article.

Evaluating Sources
The links for the sources work and the sources that I checked did support the claims in the article. However, some of the sources do not appear to have proper citations and the actual book itself--The Bondwoman's Narrative--is cited twice two different ways. Nearly all of the sources are scholarly articles or books and the sources that are not are still reliable and used appropriately. The sources are neutral as well. There are some facts in the article that could use citations or a more appropriate source, but the strong majority are cited well. Overall, the sources that exist are good, but as more information is added to the article, hopefully more sources will be added as well.

Checking the Talk Page
The only comment on the talk page is that the summary is too detailed. There is no reply to it, and based off of my reading of the article, it was never addressed. I agree with the comment because there are a lot of unnecessary details for a summary. It feels a little bit like the author chose their favorite parts and included details about those and then summarized the rest of the novel because some sections have way more details than other. The article is a part of two WikiProjects: novels and women writers. It is rated Stub-class for both of them, so it needs a significant amount of improvements, and I agree. It's a good starting point, but this novel is so important and so interesting and the article for it could be so much more detailed.

Optional Activity
The message that I left on the talk page: "Hello! The article clearly states how The Bondwoman's Narrative was proven to be historically authentic, but perhaps noting any challenges to its authenticity would be useful? Or, if there aren't any challenges, noting that there are none."

Cymbeline Edits: Implementation Plan
I will convert the current "References" section to only include references that are formatted in this way: "Wells and Dobson, p. 101." I will make sure that the references refer back to the correct sentence in the article and that they also refer to the correction citation in the newly created "Sources" section of the article. I will demonstrate how this will work below:

References Practice
Peter Berek asserts that when Greene called Shakespeare an "upstart crow," he could have either been implying that Shakespeare is an petty actor who is merely attempting to be an artistic playwright or that Shakespeare plagiarizes his plays.